Holland and Sweden

I will be travelling to Europe in the week of Sept 9-15 to give presentations in Holland and Sweden. Two presentations in Holland on Sept 14 – a private presentation in the morning at KNMI and a public presentation at 7.30 in the evening at the Free University in Amsterdam presented by Natuurwetenschap & Techniek (who published one of the first articles on M&M in Feb 2005) – link . On Sep. 11, I will be making a presentation at the KTH (Royal Institute of Technology) International Climate Seminar in Stockholm.

The KNMI Annual Report, just published, has a section on the hockeystick with a bold heading: “the points criticised have been mostly refuted in various studies” and in the running text:

As far as science is concerned: since the start of 2005, the points criticised by McIntyre and McKitrick have been mostly refuted in various studies.

As I live near the Dutch border, a few hours drive from Amsterdam, I like to be at the Free University of Amsterdam to hear your presentation and if you have the time, to offer you a (Belgian) beer (Dutch beer is not drinkable – as we say here!). Can you give me more details, the link seems not to work…
I am sure Hans Erren will be there too and I suppose a lot of people from HAN (Heidelberg Appeal Netherlands) and of the “Groene Rekenkamer” (“Green -financial- Audit”) will be there too.

It is no wonder that the KNMI still is promoting the HS. It was prominintly present in the (pro-AGW) climate report that it made last year for the Tweede Kamer (the chamber of representatives) in The Netherlands. If they have to abandon it, that would be a serious blow for the report…

The Stockholm meeting looks interesting – will there be any video/audio/written/Powerpoint files of the presentations? The written comments on “why this meeting is a bad idea”, found on the meeting website, are pretty amusing.

As I live near the Dutch border, a few hours drive from Amsterdam, I like to be at the Free University of Amsterdam to hear your presentation and if you have the time, to offer you a (Belgian) beer (Dutch beer is not drinkable – as we say here!).

That’s true. Heineken, Hoegaarden, Oranjeboom, Grolsch, Amstel – all terrible. I much prefer Belgian beers although since there are 500 of them, I can’t say I’ve drank even a small percentage.

The report made by Bureau CE, KNMI and Wageningen University can be found here. The report is from 2004, one year earlier than I thought. On page 15, fig.3 you can find the Mann + Jones + Briffa reconstructions, taken from the 2001 IPCC Third Assesment Report. While Esper, with much higher variability, was known at the time when the KNMI report was made…

The caption of fig.3 is interesting:

Four reconstructions of the average temperature on the Northern Hemisphere in the past 1,000 years. The gray area gives the uncertainty of the most advanced series (black line of Mann ea.). The spread of the different lines gives an impression of the accuracy of the reconstructions.

The last sentence is interesting in light of the Esper, Moberg and Huang reconstructions…

The abstract translates (in my school English) as:

Scientific knowledge of climate change
1. The human influence on climate in the second part of the 20th century is demonstrated. In the next century, a huge increase of the concentration of greenhouse gases is expected. This will warm the earth further.
2.according to todays knowledge, without mitigation measures, this will lead to a world average increase in temperature of 1.4 to 5.8°C in 2100.
3. Meanwhile, the effects of climate change are observed on large scale. Weather patterns change, sea levels rise, glaciers and ice caps are reducing and habitats of plants and animals move.
These effects will frow in the future. In The Netherlands, precipitation patterns and temperature (will) change, leading to higher chances of as good inundation as periods of prolonged droughtperiods.
4. To keep these effects manageable, the worldwide temperature increase should not reach more that 2°C in the next century. This needs emission reductions of 60-80% in 2100. A less stringent goal will give unrepairable damage tot human habitat of many places on earth.
5. The measures taken to reduce the emissions of greenhouse gases (mitigation) don’t have an immediate effect. They can’t prevent that the current trends of climate change will go on in the next century.

As you can see, pretty scaring…

In the report itself, the science is mostly based on the IPCC Third Assesment Report…

I think this quote from the “Why this meeting is a bad idea” link on the Stockholm meeting is a very good summation of my personal questions regarding the “consensus” of climate scientists. As an engineer, I was curious about the question of AGW. As I researched more and more and asked questions I kept getting hit with the “We’ve already discussed that and moved on” answer. When I researched further the only “discussion” was blanket dismissals with very little substance to them. I’m glad to see that some people are asking the hard quesions (Steve M in particular).

General comment by Arthur Rorsch: …The mainline researchers are all the time taking refuge in their consensus culture without proper respond to the fundamental scientific objections from neighboring disciplines.. And the strategic attack of the mainline researchers on the critics is their lack of expertise. This doubt on expertise may be right, but please, mainline researchers, (IPCC dogma supporters) explain than to the opponents of your views from other disciplines, why they are absolutely wrong? If you, mainline researchers, do not turn up at the Stockholm conference, it seems to me sufficient evidence that you can not prove that the critics are absolutely wrong. You just have not the courage to meet the critics from other disciplines. I challenge you, IPCC dogma supporters, come to Stockholm and kill the criticism produced by the critical speakers at the conference. If you do not, I think, you are cowards.

The following appeared in the Malaysia Star a couple of days ago. I copied the site and part of the article. It appears that China has discovered Global Warming, but economic development will have priority.

By Chris Buckley
BEIJING (Reuters) – Storms, floods, heat and drought that have killed more than 2,000 people in China this year are a prelude to weather patterns likely to become more extreme due to global warming, the head of the Beijing Climate Centre said.

“The precise causes of these phenomena aren’t easy to determine on their own,” Dong told Reuters of meteorological disasters that have caused 160 billion yuan ($20 billion) worth of damage this year.

“But we know the broad background is global warming. That’s clear. It’s a reminder that global warming will bring about increasingly extreme weather events more often.”

A study issued by China’s chief climate scientists last year predicted that mean temperatures across China were likely to climb, forcing major changes in rainfall, desertification, river flows and crop production.

Yet even as China approaches the United States as the world’s largest producer of the manmade greenhouse gases that trap heat in the atmosphere, Beijing is set against mandatory ceilings on its emissions, experts said.

“China’s preoccupation is economic development and growth,” said Paul Harris, of Lingnan University in Hong Kong, who studies climate change policy.

“It seems Chinese policy-makers are beginning to take warnings about global
warming on board. But they certainly don’t want to sign on to compulsory caps.”

Global warming may increase rainfall in China’s north, but increased temperatures and evaporation there are likely to offset much or all of that, Lin Erda, a climate expert at the Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences, told Reuters.

Without corrective action, nationwide agricultural production was likely to fall between 5 and 10 percent, he said.